Don't you feel bad for joggers?

The bicycle is such a beautiful thing.

Whenever I pass a fellow "near 40y/o", battling mortality by jarring his knees, at a paltry 6mph, I ask myself... WHY?????!

When - for the price of a water heater - you could have a magical machine that can take you on unplanned adventures, and instinctive escapades?

How many among us wheelers have jaunted off on an unknown left [or right] turn... confident that our gears and momentum [and that snickers bar ;-] could carry us through a waylayed course?


Only the most rightfully-arrogant leggers pull such a stunt.

So I guess I'm left asking the question... Why do they run, when nirvana is so close at hand [foot?]?

 

Well as someone who runs occationally I like it more for the simplicity, it is kinda like riding a bike, but it is just you. Plus it seems like less hassle sometimes (no gear but shoes, and nothing to maintain), and I am much less affected by cold weather running than on the bike.

I dated a girl who was a hardcore runner, and she couldn't understand why you would ride a bike. I remember her main argument was that you couldn't get as hard of a workout, I tried to tell her she needed to pedal harder but it fell on deaf ears. I guess when a conditioned runner rides a bike their muscles get tired before their cardio system does

Either way I would rate cycling as WAAAAAY better than running if you had to choose one... even if it wasn't hard on the body.

 

Well, a runner can get a good workout in 45 minutes, something you can do at lunch time. Biking takes way more time, and it is much easier to take running shoes on a business trip than it is to take a bike. I raced cat3 through college, was a runner for 25+ years until I took early retirement, and now race Master's as a bikie again. Why the 25 years of running? - because working full time and raising a family didn't leave enough time to be a competitive bikie. I know many do it, but I couldn't. So running has its virtues!

 

I used to be a runner, and it does have its perks. For example: 1) you can get a complete and challenging workout in 30 min or less, 2) when motorists honk, it's for all the right reasons, ... and 3) you can do it on the beach.

I'm converted now. A 3-4 hr ride on a crisp Saturday morning is like a vacation away from life

 

you guys are forgeting the best part about biking - speeding downhill at 50+mph.
yesterday i had a good tailwind on a flat road and got it up to 42mph, and caught up to a school bus. fun stuff.

running is so boring and slow

 

Some good points ,of course climb 4000 in 10 miles feet and you have a fairly quick workout on a bike.
Running is hard on my knees also, except when I lived on the beach which made it nice.
But..... there is something about watching a young lady in a loose fitting sports bra do a hard jog down the trail.
IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!

 

I enjoy running. I like what it does for my mid section. No matter how much I ride, it doesn't help shrink the stomach area. But I do get some injuries from doing it. Probably because I'm starting to age. I like that you can get a good workout in a shorter period of time. Also, when traveling, you just bring shoes and shorts.

 

This is exactly why I am a duathlete. I get the best of both worlds. I can fit a hard workout in at lunch and cycle in the morning or evening. It works very well. It also provides excellent balance between quads and hamstrings. I used to only run and I got runners knee. After a month of cycling in addition to running, my runner's knee left for good.

 

Who cares? Why do you complain about people running? I'm sure millions of runners could post a message asking why you ride a silly metal thing on streets with cars whizzing by at 50mph and only a 15 ounce helmet for protection. And they're wondering this while they are out on some back road, or miles away from everything on a secluded mountain trail.
This is a silly post. http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

 

I have seen many cyclists and runners on BOTH busy highway roads, and secluded back roads. I dont think he was complaining anyways.

 

I think I'd rather run than cycle if my body/joints could take the pounding. I don't care for sharing the road with idiot drivers. Back when I used to run I could easily avoid cars. Difficult to do on a bike. Running was cheaper too! Decent shoes, shorts and some oil between the legs and I was good to go.

I don't know where some of you get the idea that you can't get as good of a workout in a short time from cycling as running though. I don't know what you guys are doing wrong but I can get an equally gruelling workout on the bike in 30 - 45 minutes.

 

I like biking much more, but I still feel like I should defend running because I used to be a runner.

When you run, you are not limited to roads or trails. you have much more mobility, albeit in a smaller area. Last summer I used to run to the lake, put my shoes and socks in a garbage bag, swim across, bush whack through the forest until I came to a trail , and then run home. You can't do that with a bike.

 

I do not know about the cost. A friend of mine that runs spend way more in a season on shoes then I do on bikes. I go through 2 sets of tires and 1 chain a season and he goes through about 4 pairs of shoes or more.

 

Wow!
I certainly didn't want to raise the ire of runners the world over!
I, also, am a former jogger. Albeit, coerced by the US Army!

But bicycling is so much more than just exercise. It's freedom, it's bottled childhood... it's psychotherapy ;-)

 

I agree with the Doctor on his second paragraph - I'm sure the old adage of 3 x the distance on the bike gives the same workout in terms of energy consumption etc. 6 miles running is like 18 miles cycling and takes about the same time?

 

I'm not sure who you're agreeing with here. While running, I can click off 7-min miles pretty comfortably and 6 miles of that would be a nice, long workout.

On the flip side, riding 18 miles in those 42 minutes would be a 25.7mph average speed. I don't know what kind of rider you are, but holding a 25.7mph avg for 42 minutes would be riding my ass off. That's not how I normally ride.

The point wasn't so much that you *can't* do a 30-45 minute cycling workout, but rather that running workouts are typically shorter in duration than cycling workouts. I think your adage tends to support that.

 

The 3x conversion factor is OK. A more accurate conversion factor will take into account one's speed on the bike as increased wind resistance will affect one's effort levels. Here's a quick article by Dr. Burke that will shed some light...

http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?...content=A-8&CategoryID=66&ArticleID=2#article

From article:
For example, riding 20 miles at 15 mph burns 620 calories (20 miles X 31 calories per mile = 620 calories). Determine the running equivalent by dividing the distance (20 miles) by the conversion divider for 15-mph (3.5). The result is 5.7 miles. This means that cycling 20 miles at 15 mph burns as many calories as running 5.7 miles.

If you rode 20 miles at 20 mph, you would divide by the corresponding number on the table (2.9). The result is 6.9 miles. So, in terms of energy expenditure, riding 20 miles at 20 mph is equivalent to running 6.9 miles. Both would bum about 760 calories (20 X 38).

 

I do both - have always been a runner and was introduced to cycling about 4 years ago. Stopped running when I started cycling. (Finally) Have become cycling fit and can race with times close to the winners and then decided to get running again. So now I cycle in the morning and run in the evenings. The only thing I can say is that since I have been back into running my average speed on the bike has picked up by about 4 km/h.

Yeah, the first few weeks were killers and my muscles screamed every time I got on my bike and then again when I start the uphill run in our street but for the better cycling times, it was all worth it!

 

The costs associated with cycling would depend on how expensive of a bike one purchased and how long they ride it as their primary bike. Somebody who rides quite a bit and has all the neato gear will have quite an expensive habit. Even the schmuks like me have quite a bit into their mid-grade aluminum steeds after factoring in all of the accessories and gadgets.

If somebody buys a $1100 Trek 1500 and rides it for 3,000 miles a year for 10 years, the initial investment of the bike will only be $110 per year. That in and of itself isn't bad. However, at some point - depending on what kind of riding conditions, the style of riding (masher vs. spinner) and the rider's weight - they will have to purchase a couple of chainrings, a few cassettes, a handfull of chains, brake pads, cables, a new wheelset (or have the original ones rebuilt), a trainer if one lives in frosty climates, yadda yadda blah blah.

Figure in some costs for maintenance at the LBS also unless one can do their own. Add a helmet, a few pair of gloves, a few pair of shorts and cleats and it's easy to see how cycling can be an expensive sport.

That's with a pretty entry level bike too and while it may suit the needs of the average Joe (like me ), my guess is the average rider on this forum probably has quite a bit more bike than that.

I was going to allow a credit for when the 10 years is up should the owner sell the bike, but a Trek 1500 with 30,000 miles probably isn't worth too much (certainly wouldn't be to me) and would best be kept for a backup or to use as a commuter anyway.

 

No cars just the peace of the bush.

Just have to put on shoes.

No mechanical failures.

If you fall off it doesn't hurt.

You can take your dog.

Nill preparation time.

Use almost twice the energy used per unit of time.

Upper body gets a work out.

Can do it anywhere (even if you haven't got your bike).

You are not limited to 6 mph you can go faster.

You enjoy the coffee more.

No incessant wind whistling through your helmet straps.

No helmet.

More freedom of leg and ankle movement.

More rapid weight loss than cycling (if you are trying to lose weight).

Better for the environment. Tyres, lubricants energy involved in construction of bikes.

No batteries needed (lights, computers etc).

Less pose value.

Less sunburn.

You don't fall over if you get your feet caught in your shoes.

No speeding fines.

No parking problems.


So, in answer to your question, No.

But don't let me stop you from building up your self esteem by putting down another group of people who, like most cyclists, are only trying to look after their bodies.


Have you see those idiot swimmers...